Jeevanlal Kashyap and another Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

For Appellants : Mr. RK Pali and Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocates. For Respondent/State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava and Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyers.

¶13

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

(04^th February, 2026)

¶16

Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the

¶17

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.8.2015 passed

¶18

2

¶19

by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa in ST No.175/2013 whereby the appellants Jeevanlal Kashyap and Varun Kashyap stand convicted and sentenced as under:

¶20

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 294 of IPC.	RI for two months, pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for one month.
Under Section 506 Part-II of IPC.	RI for two years, pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for one month.
Under Section 323/34 of IPC.	RI for one year, pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default thereof to
	suffer additional RI for two months.
Under Section 307/34 of IPC.	RI for ten years, pay a fine of Rs.10000/- and in default thereof
	to suffer additional RI for six months.

¶21

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶22

The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the complainant and the accused are related to each other as brothers and nephews. On June 11, 2013, at 6:30 AM in village Kaitha, Police Station-Hasoud, the accused were plowing and sowing paddy in the field adjacent to the complainant's house. When the complainant, Krishna Kumar alias Sonu and Ashwani, objected to this, the accused verbally abused them

¶23

3

¶24

with obscene language involving their mother and sister and threatened to kill them. During this encounter, Shubham grabbed Ashwani Kumar by the waist, and the accused, Jeevanlal, with the intent to kill, attacked Ashwani Kumar with an axe (Tangiya). Ashwani tried to block the blow with his right hand, resulting in his right wrist being severed from his body. At the same time, the accused, Varun, assaulted the complainant, Krishna Kumar alias Sonu, with a stick, causing him injuries. Upon the complainant’s cries for help, Charoram Kashyap, Tikeshwar Kashyap, and Saheblal arrived and intervened. Subsequently, based on the information provided by Krishna Kumar at the Hasoud Police Station, the First Information Report (Ex. P-2) was registered and the investigation commenced.

¶25

During the investigation, the police seized blood-stained soil and plain soil from the crime scene and prepared the seizure memo (Ex. P- 1). The medical examination reports of the injured were obtained. The memorandum statements of accused Jeevanlal and Varun were recorded as Ex. P-6 and Ex. P-7, respectively. An iron axe (Tangiya) was seized from Jeevanlal, and a bamboo stick was seized from Varun, for which seizure memos Ex. P-8 and Ex. P-9 were prepared. Ashwani Kumar’s blood-stained lungi was seized vide memo Ex. P-3. A panchnama (inquest report) of Ashwani Kumar’s severed hand was prepared as Ex. P-4. Query reports for the seized items were obtained as Ex. P-21, Ex. P-22, and Ex. P-23. Statements of witnesses were recorded, spot maps were prepared and seized articles were sent to

¶26

4

¶27

FSL for chemical examination. After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellants before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate u/s 294, 506B, 323, 307, 34 of IPC followed by framing of charges accordingly by learned trial Court, which were abjured by the accused persons and they prayed for trial.

¶28

In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 14 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In their defence, they examined Dhanush Kumar Pandey (DW-1) and Varun Kumar (DW-2). After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced accused/appellants as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.

¶29

During pendency of this appeal, appellant No.2 Varun Kashyap died on 19.4.2021. This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for the parties. His death certificate is also on record. Accordingly, this appeal stands abated in respect of appellant No.2 Varun Kashyap and is dismissed as such.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for appellant Jeevanlal Kashyap submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to

¶31

5

¶32

the material available on record. Learned trial Court failed to consider that there was previous enmity between the parties where the complainant assaulted the appellant and caused him grievous injuries. A civil case was also going on between them in relation to the disputed land where the incident took place and the appellant got a decree in his favour. It is in fact the complainant party who illegally entered the said land and raised dispute with the appellant and his family members. The memorandum and seizure witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel further submit that the ingredients of offence u/s 307 of IPC have not been proved at all in this case. There was a counter case registered against the complainant party in relation to this incident. There are material omission and contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses but the same have been overlooked by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of all the charges.

¶33

Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that if this Court ultimately confirms conviction of appellant No.1, then considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the incident occurred way back in the year 2013, appellant No.2 has already died during pendency of this appeal; the appellant No.1 Jeevanlal was on bail during pendency of this appeal and did not misuse the liberty; he has remained in jail for more than five years and

¶34

6

¶35

four months, his jail sentence u/s 307/34 of IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶36

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court having minutely examined the oral and documentary evidence rightly convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant and therefore, the present appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶38

It is clear from the record of learned trial court that the accused/appellants were charged u/s 294, 506B, 323, 307, 34 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence learned trial Court convicted and sentenced both of them as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.

¶39

PW-2 Krishna Kumar @ Sonu states that on the date of incident i.e. 11.6.2013 at around 6.30 am the accused persons were ploughing the field adjacent to his house, which was objected to by them, on which the accused persons started filthily abusing his father and then accused Varun assaulted his father with a club and accused Jeevanlal assaulted him with axe which hit his right hand as a result of which his right hand got severed from the body. Accused Varun also assaulted him (PW-2) resulting in fracture of his left hand and injury over head.

¶40

7

¶41

He states that hearing his cries, Saheblal, Charoram and Tikeshwar Kashyap came to the spot. He lodged report of Ex.P/2 against the accused persons and thereafter, they were sent to hospital for medical examination.

¶42

PW-4 Saheblal supported the statement of the complainant PW2 Krishna Kumar and in cross-examination denied all the adverse suggestions of the defence. PW-6 Ashwani Kumar, father of complainant Krishna Kumar, states that on the date of incident accused Jeevanlal, Varun and Shubham assaulted him with axe and club as a result of which he suffered grievous injuries and on account of assault by accused Jeevanlal with axe, his right hand got severed. The learned trial Court also observed in the deposition sheet that right hand of this witness is severed. The other witnesses namely PW-3 Shatrughan, PW-5 Arun Kumar, PW-7 Charoram and PW-9 Tukeshwar Prasad have admitted their signatures on the documents and stated that they saw injuries of Ashwani and his severed hand.

¶43

PW-12 Dr. Manoj Kumar, Medical Officer in Primary Health Center, Hasoud, examined injured Ashwani on 11.6.2013 and found that his right hand was cut off and there was profound bleeding. He also saw the severed hand. In his opinion the injury was serious in nature which was caused by hard and sharp object. Looking to gravity of the injury, he referred him for further treatment to District Hospital, Janjgir-Champa. His report is Ex.P/19 which bears his signature from A

¶44

8

¶45

to A part. He also examined injured Krishna Kumar and found that he suffered simple injuries caused by hard and blunt object vide his report of Ex.P/18.

¶46

PW-10 Dr. Rajesh Ahuja medically examined injured Ashwani on 11.6.2013 and found his right hand severed and he was operated upon. He states that as condition of injured Ashwani was serious, he was admitted in ICU and was discharged on 23.6.2013. On being asked by the Court about the nature of injuries, he replied that the injury was grievous in nature and fatal to life and for want of immediate treatment, could possibly cause death due to excessive bleeding.

¶47

Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that on the date of incident the accused/appellant Jeevanlal filthily abused the complainant party, threatened them of life and thereafter with intent to cause death assaulted Ashwani with a deadly weapon axe as a result of which his right hand cut off and he also caused simple injuries to Krishna Kumar @ Sonu. The complainant and his father remained firm during their cross-examination and reiterated the act of the accused/appellant. The medical evidence also supports the prosecution case. The defence has failed to elicit anything from these witnesses which could make the prosecution case doubtful or untrustworthy. Learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and rightly held the

¶48

9

¶49

accused/appellant guilty of the aforesaid offence. This Court finds no illegality in the said finding of learned trial Court regarding conviction of the accused/appellant warranting interference by this Court.

¶50

17. As regards the sentence u/s 307/34 of IPC, in the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2013, the appeal is pending since 2015; the appellant Jeevanlal was on bail during pendency of this appeal and did not misuse the liberty; he has remained in jail for more than five years and four months; this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in sending him back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be met if his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone while keeping the fine sentence imposed on him with default stipulation by learned trial court intact.

¶51

18. In the result, the appeal in respect of appellant No.2 Varun Kashyap stands abated and is dismissed as such. However, the instant appeal in respect of accused/appellant No.1 Jeevanlal Kashyap is allowed in part. His conviction under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 323/34 of IPC and sentence imposed thereunder by learned trial court are affirmed. However, while maintaining his conviction under Section 307/34 of IPC, his substantive jail sentence thereunder is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The fine imposed under this section with default stipulation by learned trial court shall remain intact.

¶52

10

¶53

The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023.

¶54

Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶55

Digitally signed by MOHD MOHDAKHTAR AKHTAR KHAN KHAN Date:2026.02.06 10:33:19 +0530 Khan

Jeevanlal Kashyap and another v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeevanlal Kashyap and another v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Manjulata Sharma Vs Reeta Shandilya

Kriparam Vs Nupur Rashi Panna

Yogesh Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rasul Siddiqui Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajaram Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanni Verma and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh